Gabriel Bodeen @gabe@qoto.org

Dream sequences in TV shows are invariably extremely bad. Dream sequences in movies are usually also bad.

Bad writing of dreams treats them as "easy mode": anything goes, there are no consequences, and it doesn't even make sense. But in good writing, dreams are "hard mode"! Most importantly, the writer needs to justify the dream's inclusion in the story by making it achieve something in a way that's better than a lucid scene could provide. Then additionally, the writer needs to creatively supply their own limits, consequences, order, and coherence, which is genuinely difficult.

Season 2, episode 1 fell flat.

Much of it was wasted on a meaningless dream sequence with everyone's least favorite character (Seldon's broken ghost). Someday I hope that TV writers will realize dream sequences are self-indulgent and invariably *suck* for audiences, but sadly that day has not yet come.

The remaining scenes were better but still didn't make any progress or develop any characters. It felt like they were just rushing through a few obligatory scenes to get to something more important. Whatever it is that's more important to the story though, that also has not yet come.

Foundation, the TV adaptation of Isaac Asimov's famous sci-fi books, had a surprisingly moving and beautiful first season. It departed from the books in many ways, but it worked. Its intimate arc about the Emperors was especially well crafted. Overall: a strong show, highly recommended.

This summer so far I enjoyed a Facebook group for nostalgic memes from our youth. Sadly it got taken over by two people (out of thousands) having a bitter political argument on an unrelated subject that started in various comment threads, as Internet arguments often do.

It's not the first time I've seen the admin role on Facebook groups get infiltrated & taken over. It makes me wish they had a democratic system. (Though they might have to limit it to users they've managed to authenticate are real human beings.)

Yes it's a trivial issue. But it's also kind of a funny way to be reminded of the power of democracy to better guard against self-serving leadership. 🙂

At home we've slowly been watching Mrs Davis, a new comedy about a nun trying to kill a powerful AI. 😁 There have been many surprises within the show, but one of the chief surprises of the show to me is how deferential it is to Christianity.

I would have expected a popular show so close to the "bad nun" trope to lean into the dark side of religion & spirituality, and especially the dark side of the church. But Mrs. Davis does not. The protagonist Simone is an unconventional nun but her faith is straightforward and realistic.

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt14759574/

The future could be unbelievably full of life. 🙂

> Our familiar, warm, yellow sun is a relative rarity in the Milky Way. By far the most common stars are considerably smaller and cooler, sporting just half the mass of our sun at most. Billions of planets orbit these common dwarf stars in our galaxy.
>
> To capture enough warmth to be habitable, these planets would need to huddle very close to their small stars, which leaves them susceptible to extreme tidal forces.
>
> In a new analysis based on the latest telescope data, University of Florida astronomers have discovered that two-thirds of the planets around these ubiquitous small stars could be roasted by these tidal extremes, sterilizing them. But that leaves one-third of the planets -- hundreds of millions across the galaxy -- that could be in a goldilocks orbit close enough, and gentle enough, to hold onto liquid water and possibly harbor life.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/05/230529171755.htm

Like a river draws all who ride it toward a common sea...

I crave a new philosophical method, one with a built-in tendency toward convergence, analogously to how science and math each slowly converge toward consensus by their own methods.

Perhaps this simple method?:

Place before you a blank sheet of paper. With your interlocutor, discuss each other's views. On the paper, write only those statements to which you both heartily agree. Aim to fill the page with valuable truths. Share the best of them.

After a good & deep political discussion, a man privately asked me what my politics was. I admitted I wasn't really sure, and it gave me a queer mixed feeling. I was proud to have not been pegged into any specific label, and sad that so few share my intuitions, and most of all confused at not even knowing anymore how to respond to such a basic question.

I've had a few days now to reflect, and this is where I am in 2023:

1) Like classical liberals, I believe the twin duties of government are to protect the rights of individuals and to promote the public's material wellbeing.

2) Like progressives, I believe the most important rights of individuals are political & social equality, such that they can live the manner of life they choose.

3) Like socialists, I believe rights of political & social equality should extend into the workplace, and indeed into all human relationships and institutions.

4) Like capitalists, I believe material inequality is permissible and useful to promote both the public's material wellbeing and individual virtue.

5) Like communists, I believe the goods necessary for a dignified life (by the standards of the local culture) should be guaranteed to be within the capacity of all to attain, even the most unfortunate and least deserving, such that they can solve their own problems.

6) Like classical conservatives, I believe that reforms should be gradual, orderly, and reversible, and also that the government must promote virtue and discourage vice.

7) Like patriotic nationalists, I believe the virtues to be rewarded by the government are secular, individualistic, and aimed at national greatness: lawfulness, responsibility, honesty, courage, prudence, peacefulness, tolerance, and the like.

8) Like cosmopolitan internationalists, I believe the people of all countries deserve the same rights and an equal measure of dignity, and that coexistence in the same communities is possible and good.

Label it as you choose. (In the US context, 1, 2, 4, & 8 are associated with the Democratic party; 3 & 5 are to its left; and 6 & 7 aren't anywhere on the map. So my party preference is clear.)

I've been reading the 2016 sci-fi book "Too Like the Lightning", by Ada Palmer -- and loving it so much! Honestly I was hooked by the *title page*, because it just jumped right into the world building with gusto. (The pic is a bit blurry, sorry. But take a look anyway!)

Next paper for the Austin LessWrong philosophy working group: "The Virtue of Subtlety and the Vice of a Heavy Hand" by Alex King: http://philosopher-king.com/king_subtlety.pdf

The whole branch of aesthetics is new to me, except for arguments defining art or beauty. I wanted something that felt different, something that focused our attention on the qualities of particular artworks and makes us think about them. This paper does so in a way I find accessible but exciting 🙂.